Audubon Society of Portland v. Natural Resources Conservation Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-35988
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01205-HZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Audubon Society of Portland (“Audubon”) appeals following the district
court’s judgment in Audubon’s action against the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, assigning error to the order awarding Audubon attorneys’
FILED
MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. See Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court’s award of attorneys’ fees was not an abuse of discretion.
Courts calculate attorneys’ fees according to the prevailing market rates in the
relevant community. See id. “Generally, the relevant community is the forum in
which the district court sits.” Id. Although the district court is located in Portland,
Oregon, its jurisdiction includes the entire state of Oregon. Because Audubon did
not provide satisfactory evidence showing that Portland was the appropriate
community for purposes of establishing its attorneys’ hourly rates, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by applying Oregon statewide rates.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --